Emperor’s Rants and Observations

Alaska’s Assets in Sudan Targeted.

Lauren Tibbitts-Travis, a 16-year-old sophomore at the local high school, plans to use her Alaska Permanent Fund dividend to pay for college.

But she sees a problem — a problem of conscience.

“Who wants to go to college on blood money?” she said.

Tibbitts-Travis is among supporters of a bill two state lawmakers from Anchorage are sponsoring to force managers of the $38 billion Permanent Fund to dump the stocks of companies doing business in Sudan, the African country whose government has been blamed for genocidal killings in the Darfur region.

First off I’d like to offer a tip of the cap to the 16 year old young lady Lauren Tibbitts-Travis. Regardless whether we agree with her opinion or not, it’s gratifying to see young people like her engaged in our society. Too often the news we read about teens is of the bad variety. Nice reminder that there are still a lot of good kids out there.

The Sudan/Darfur situation is absolutely appalling which I think we all agree on. I don’t believe any of us would want to support the Sudan Government in the midst of this genocide. The US government already forbids US Companies from doing business in Sudan, so all we are talking about is a handful of foreign companies. Something I’m not too excited about anyway. 22 million out of 38 billion is a minuscule percentage (%0.0006 unless I fat fingered the calculator), so I don’t really buy the cost argument against dumping those stocks.

The real question is whether we want our Permanent Fund Managers to invest in a socially conscious manner. I know that Rep Gara has set the limit at “one genocide” but the truth of the matter is that if we start down that path, there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle. What if we find that we are investing in a company that is conducting stem cell research? Or a company that is using child labor? How about companies that do business in Iran or North Korea? Wouldn’t all those be considered good targets by some not to invest in? Or even my feeling about investing in any foreign company?

Other states are already investing in socially concious ways. For instance, a core group of state treasurers and controllers are moving their investments into environmentally friendly and clean tech funds, while thinking big about climate change.

I think it’s a discussion worth having, but I think we need to discuss the topic of “Socially Conscious Investing ” of the Permanent Fund, not just this one set of businesses doing business in Sudan.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report to Congress said any applicant proposing to build a multibillion-dollar pipeline to carry North Slope gas to market ideally should have firm commitments from producers to ship the gas on the new pipeline.

Many predicted this exact scenario when AGIA was “debated”.

People said there would few if any qualifying offers. We got one

People said that it was going no where without commitments from producers to ship gas through the line.

People said that AGIA would only delay the process further and we would be no closer to the reality of a Gas Pipeline at the end of Palin’s term than we were at the beginning.

People warned that Palin was not going to bully the producers into making a deal that was too risky without a commitment on taxes.

Also, let’s applaud the one man in the legislature, Ralph Samuels, that had the courage of his convictions to vote against AGIA in the wake of the Veco scandal for this exact reason.

Alaskan Best Search - Ralph Samuels

AGIA was a giant step backward. It didn’t produce the competition Palin promised. And yet she steadfastly refuses to consider the proposals of Conoco-Phillips or the Alaska Gasline Port Authority.

The fact is that Palin and her underlings have been wrong every step of the way. Each passing day we are further and further away from making the pipeline a reality.

Alaskan Best Search - Alaska Gasline Port Authority
Alaskan Best Search - ConocoPhillips Gas Pipeline

Palin has committed 500 Million dollars to a company that probably won’t even qualify to get the required permits because they have no gas to ship.

Here is the Murkowski negotiated contract.

You can find all of the supporting documents here.

There is no pipeline if there is no commitment to ship gas. There is no commitment to ship gas without stable long term agreement on costs to the producers. Nobody in their right mind would commit to hundreds of billions of dollars in any project without knowing the the long term costs. Nobody is going to bully the oil companies into making that kind of investment. Even with the bribe of 500 Million dollars the state was only able to get one “qualifying” offer. That alone should be enough to convince anyone how far off Palin is in her thinking.

I can’t fathom why these simple facts are so hard for some people to grasp.

Are we, as a State and people, willing to invest the billions of dollars and take all the risk to develop our vast resources? For instance, are we willing to invest the nearly 40 billion dollars in the Permanent Fund into developing and bringing our resources to market?

There is a good deal of empty rhetoric about how the resources are “ours” and we should dictate and control how and when they are developed. However, whether it is Oil, Gas, Fish, Timber or Minerals it’s private enterprises that take the risk, make the investments and provide the labor and expertise needed. What role should the State take other than landlord, and recipient of taxes, fees and royalties?

Alaskan Best Search - “Natural Resources“

I’ve done a little reading at Alaskans For Clean Elections. I’ll admit, I warming to the idea. Like many others, I was put off by money going to candidates that I wouldn’t support. But now, I’m beginning to see it another way. The money is really being paid to improve the system. If public financing can improve the system to produce better candidates, better representatives and better government, it’s something we should at least consider.

Over the years I’ve known a number of people that would have made excellent elected officials. One of the things that stopped them was needing PAC and Party support. I think public financing could give us better people and more diverse candidates.

It follows if we can improve the candidates, then we should see an improvement of our representatives as well. Perhaps more frequent challengers to the incumbents, I still like term limits though.

A few election cycles down the road we could see the majority of both houses elected in clean elections. The majority of both houses beholden only to the citizens they represent. Imagine the possibilities. So yeah, I think it may be worth it invest in the system to improve results.

I’m going to do some reading at Arizona’s Citizens Clean Election Commission website. Looks like a good place to start.

With or without “Clean Elections” I have another idea I’ve been harping on here.

Excuse me if you’ve read this before.

A candidate may only accept donations from registered voters eligible to vote for that candidate.

I would be more likely to support a candidate that would make a commitment to that ideal.

I don’t see the “Freedom of Expression” argument here. We already place limits on what the candidates can legally accept. I’m just suggesting that we use my phrase above (or similar with the intended meaning) as THE rule for donations to candidates. Unless you mean that you want to remove all restrictions on candidates in the name of freedom of expression.

Bottom line is that we have to do something to change the status quo.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

Alaskan Best Search - Campaign Finance and Election Reform